tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post4823491011464631637..comments2014-05-09T13:25:02.936-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Report: Dawkins at UT, Part 1Martinnoreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-34365686537787670512008-03-24T23:35:00.000-05:002008-03-24T23:35:00.000-05:00"Please. But if you want to believe that about me,..."Please. But if you want to believe that about me, go ahead."<BR/><BR/>It's nothing to do with what I "want". It's simply an observation. It isn't me who rejects the most strongly supported scientific theory on paper-thin pretexts.Luihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05210714337197709016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-74298994714828878212008-03-24T13:31:00.000-05:002008-03-24T13:31:00.000-05:00Hi NAL,1) No, and absent an argument from you to t...Hi NAL,<BR/><BR/>1) No, and absent an argument from you to that effect, I don't see why that should matter.<BR/>2) <A HREF="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=8225341779641252488&hl=en-GB" REL="nofollow">Sure it does.</A> <BR/>3) Why? What's your argument for that assertion?<BR/><BR/>And I don't see alot of value in just naked assertions that animals "understand" reality. <BR/>Maybe you should deal with the EAAN argument rather than let it ride unanswered by you and then try to assume that it doesn't have overreaching consequences for any statement you make. If it is true, there's no reason to think <BR/>1) your statements reflect reality<BR/>2) my statements reflect reality<BR/>3) I understand your statements<BR/>4) you understand mine<BR/>5) we can even argue.<BR/><BR/>But we DO understand, we DO argue. Thus, evolution ain't the case.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-23246086679120636312008-03-24T10:34:00.000-05:002008-03-24T10:34:00.000-05:00rhology: The whole point is that this evolution h...rhology: <B>The whole point is that this evolution has directed and been influenced by their BEHAVIOR. Nothing to do at all with their beliefs (since they don't really have any).</B><BR/><BR/>It's all about understanding reality. Sometimes beliefs can help us understand reality. Animals have an understanding of reality. You don't see any animals (except humans) praying to God, the idea is ridiculous. Animals don't need God to understand their reality. Neither do humans. <BR/><BR/>Sometimes beliefs can hinder our understand reality. Religion has been a hindrance to our understanding of reality.NALhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-17089330564428816172008-03-24T09:52:00.000-05:002008-03-24T09:52:00.000-05:00rhology: 1) Please. If this is God we're talking a...rhology: <B><BR/>1) Please. If this is God we're talking about, He created it all. <BR/>2) Your mind controls your material body.<BR/>3) As if the inability to fully explain a mechanism means that we must deny such mechanism exists. </B><BR/><BR/>1) So, you don't know either.<BR/>2) Modern medicine has an excellent explanation for how this happens.<BR/>3) The inability to even identify a mechanism means that we must be skeptical that such mechanism exists.NALhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-55238711559597095382008-03-24T07:17:00.000-05:002008-03-24T07:17:00.000-05:00Then one wonders how a non-material object control...<I>Then one wonders how a non-material object controls the material world</I><BR/><BR/>1) Please. If this is God we're talking about, He created it all. <BR/>2) Your mind controls your material body.<BR/>3) As if the inability to fully explain a mechanism means that we must deny such mechanism exists. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>If God can control the material, then this control would also be detectable.</I><BR/><BR/>What's your argument for that?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>It seems obvious that any animal, who's cognitive faculties don't function reliably, would be at an evolutionary disadvantage when compared to those whose cognitive faculties do function reliably.</I><BR/><BR/>The whole point is that this evolution has directed and been influenced by their BEHAVIOR. Nothing to do at all with their beliefs (since they don't really have any). This helps make Plantinga's point; thanks.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>your view of life's history is at least 150 years out of date</I><BR/><BR/>As if modernity (or old-ity) is a measure for truth. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Lui said:<BR/><I>It's blindingly obvious that your rejection of evolution is for emotional reasons.</I><BR/><BR/>Please. But if you want to believe that about me, go ahead. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Whatever evidence we can ever present to you will be rejected with some stupid retort like "Well, I don't see why that should matter to me, because I take the Biblical view."</I><BR/><BR/>As I've explained over and over again...<BR/>If you offer a fact, you have to interpret it in order to find out whether it's evidence for your worldview or not. But if 2 diff worldviews can acct for the same fact, you have to move on to other facts, during which process one will presumably find a fact that one worldview accts for and the other doesn't. Then you have EVIDENCE FOR YOUR WORLDVIEW. You don't have evidence for your worldview if the competing worldview can also acct for that fact. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Akusai said:<BR/><I>while mine is backed up with testable, repeatable evidence.</I><BR/><BR/>The irony is that you just claimed to be more foundational than Plantinga. <BR/>This evidence means NOTHING, helps you NOT AT ALL if EAAN is correct. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>"If there is all this evidence for evolution and naturalism, a tricky little philosophical word gambit proves it all false."</I><BR/><BR/>B/c if EAAN is correct, your mind probably doesn't produce true beliefs, so any conclusions you draw from the collection of facts before you is highly suspect. Shoot, even labelling said facts as "evidence" is suspect. Calling them "facts" is suspect. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>type of argument that can't possibly be backed up with evidence and is expected to be accepted as physically true in reality by virtue of its rhetorical content</I><BR/><BR/>Then I seriously doubt you understand the thrust of it. But again, given EAAN (which I think sticks), we're seeing the low probability of your mind producing true beliefs is already in evidence. <BR/>I hope you don't carpool with someone... they could be in grave danger.<BR/><BR/>Both akusai and Lui are also apparently mollifying themselves with jabs at my supposed emotionally needy state. They're welcome to those jabs; I'll be happy to type that which pertains to the actual argument. My wrists aren't strong enough for much fluff.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-7640044069284063102008-03-23T23:43:00.000-05:002008-03-23T23:43:00.000-05:00Rho:I'm actually arguing that my viewpoint is far ...Rho:<BR/><BR/>I'm actually arguing that my viewpoint is far more foundational than Plantinga's because his is, as I seem to be repeating, empty words on paper, while mine is backed up with testable, repeatable evidence. Argue with that part all you want, but I don't see how you can say something like "If there is all this evidence for evolution and naturalism, a tricky little philosophical word gambit proves it all false." Yes, <I>if</I> it is true, then perhaps there are some problems (of course, anti-scientists from left and right say the same thing about the problem of induction, have for years, and still nobody gives a shit), but I don't believe that an argued point can be shown to be true by virtue of its ability to convince people. Unless there's some real evidence apart from wordplay on paper, I have no reason to accept it.<BR/><BR/>Which is my key problem with Plantinga's argument; it's the type of argument that can't possibly be backed up with evidence and is expected to be accepted as physically true in reality by virtue of its rhetorical content, and I just don't swing that way.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, Lui is quite correct, I believe, in his assessment. Plantinga has what I like to call an "infallibility complex;" compare with a "superiority complex:" one is so burdened by feelings of inferiority (fallibility) that one goes to great lengths to feel superior (infallible). Plantinga's argument reads like an attempt to bolster his own psychological well-being: "But I'm not fallible, am I? Obviously, it can't be this evolution stuff that would make me fallible. God has to be there protecting my precious little infallible [or less-fallible than he would like] mind!"<BR/><BR/>As I said, it's an argument constructed backwards, conclusion first: "I'm not fallible like these scienctists say, I'm definitely a special snowflake, and God totally exists, so how can I spin those with tricky, sophistic wordplay to come out on top?"Akusaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06661441668625677468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-46182709439745013582008-03-23T22:56:00.000-05:002008-03-23T22:56:00.000-05:00Plantinga: "The naturalism that Dawkins embraces, ...Plantinga: <B>"The naturalism that Dawkins embraces, ... its dispiriting conclusions about human beings and their place in the universe ..."</B><BR/><BR/>Another example of religionist projection. In the end, he has an emotional need to believe that it's all about <I>him</I>. That humans are artefacts of the universe, produced by processes with no inkling for the things we hold dear, is deemed so terrifying and "dispiriting" to some that it has to be fought at all costs. That's really what it comes down to.Luihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05210714337197709016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-70083699627860490132008-03-23T22:49:00.000-05:002008-03-23T22:49:00.000-05:00"Depending on whether someone holds to evolution, ..."Depending on whether someone holds to evolution, maybe. But I don't; my worldview is the biblical one."<BR/><BR/>In other words, your view of life's history is at least 150 years out of date, eschewing not only Darwin and Wallace, but also the modern synthesis and more recent developments in developmental biology and molecular phylogenetics. It's blindingly obvious that your rejection of evolution is for emotional reasons. Whatever evidence we can ever present to you will be rejected with some stupid retort like "Well, I don't see why that should matter to me, because I take the Biblical view." If only you had even the <I>slightest</I> inkling for the way scientists do their work and put together scientific theories. By the way, I've seen Plantinga's "arguments" about evolution. They're lame as.Luihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05210714337197709016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-72125356204972957112008-03-23T22:43:00.000-05:002008-03-23T22:43:00.000-05:00Plantinga: After all, couldn't it be that God has ...Plantinga: <B>After all, couldn't it be that God has directed and overseen the process of evolution?</B><BR/><BR/>Is that what he's arguing, that evolution is true, except it was guided? That the theory of common descent is true? Of course he doesn't actually come out and say this. He doesn't dare confront Dawkins regarding evolution. <BR/><BR/>Plantinga: <B>But of course God is a spirit, not a material object at all ...</B><BR/><BR/>Then one wonders how a non-material object controls the material world. One would think this would be at the top of Plantinga's "things to find out about." If God can control the material, then this control would also be detectable. Maybe he would argue that scientists have mistaken naturalism for God's control. <BR/><BR/>Plantinga: <B>But from a naturalist point of view the thought that our cognitive faculties are reliable (produce a preponderance of true beliefs) would be at best a naïve hope.</B><BR/><BR/>But he doesn't explain why. It seems obvious that any animal, who's cognitive faculties don't function reliably, would be at an evolutionary disadvantage when compared to those whose cognitive faculties do function reliably. <BR/><BR/>Plantinga: <B>The naturalism that Dawkins embraces, ... its dispiriting conclusions about human beings and their place in the universe ...</B><BR/><BR/>And there you have it. Naturalism is dispiriting. It's ego deflating. <BR/>Get over yourself and grow up.NALhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-84247153210645330122008-03-23T20:09:00.000-05:002008-03-23T20:09:00.000-05:00Matt D and akusai,I really think you guys are miss...Matt D and akusai,<BR/>I really think you guys are missing the point. As Tomas said, **IF** Plantinga's argument is correct, not only is the probability that naturalism is true low or inscrutable, but the probability that ANY statement you make on ANY subject is true is low or inscrutable. So don't talk to us about "mountains of evidence" (as if taking facts and slapping the label "evidence for evolution" on them makes them, in fact, evidence for evolution). <BR/>So you need to deal with the argument. It's more foundational than you're making it out to be.<BR/><BR/>You act as if this is a similar problem for a theist. Depending on whether someone holds to evolution, maybe. But I don't; my worldview is the biblical one. So you'd need to make an argument that the same low or inscrutable probability applies to statements I make, as a holder-to of the biblical worldview.<BR/><BR/>And I don't see the link to solipsism either, unless you mean the universal doubt thing. But this is not about universal doubt. This is about the universal doubt about most everythg <B>if you hold to one specific worldview</B>. But not everyone accepts that worldview, so the EAAN doesn't cast solipsistic allusions over my way.<BR/><BR/><I>without physical evidence of a deity, none of them are demonstrably true.</I><BR/><BR/>1) Why "physical" evidence? Do you mean like a scat pile or sthg? Or more like an orange? I wouldn't have taken you for someone who's open to ID-style arguments.<BR/>2) If EAAN is true, you can't know whether this is a request for evidence or a profession of faith in Christ or a claim to be a chocolate bar. <BR/>3) Further, since EAAN just happens to stick, I don't accept statements from anyone who has no basis to believe that he has any access to truth. <BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-1115096821598407782008-03-23T13:06:00.000-05:002008-03-23T13:06:00.000-05:00Tomas:I do think you're bolstering Plantinga's arg...Tomas:<BR/><BR/>I do think you're bolstering Plantinga's argument to be far more complicated than it really is. I'm not as unfamiliar with it as you seem to think just because I rather vehemently believe it to be useless nonsense.<BR/><BR/>I will be charitable, though, and admit that my point may have been lost in snark. It is also possible that you intentionally misconstrued it because you seem to believe that anyone who doesn't mentally fellate philosophy in general and Plantinga in specific somehow just "doesn't get it." Whether or not that is true, I will attempt to spell out my point more clearly.<BR/><BR/>Mostly what I was getting at (albeit somewhat unclearly) is that neither I nor any evolutionist I have ever met, seen, heard of, or read accepts (tentatively) evolution as fact because some philosopher made a compelling argument. We accept it as fact because there are mountains of evidence from multiple lines of scientific inquiry.<BR/><BR/>Likewise, I don't think I've ever heard of anybody (though it's probably more likely people like this exist) who rejects claims of gods and of a supernature and accepts metaphysical naturalism as the most likely scenario because some philosopher made a compelling argument. Rather, I (and pretty much everyone I've ever met) accept it (tentatively, again, as with any conclusion) based on the <I>complete lack of evidence</I> for gods or a supernature.<BR/><BR/>Frankly, philosophical argument doesn't really even enter into it. Thus I don't feel the need to make a formal rebuttal based on your standards for philosophical discourse and reject a premise or premises because I reject the entire method as being anything but rhetorical and didactic. This is what I meant when I said one cannot talk one's way to truth about the natural world. One needs <I>evidence</I>, not just a convincing syllogism.<BR/><BR/>Planinga may be able to <I>convince</I> people (or fail to) that his argument is true, that if evolution and naturalism are true, then we have no real basis to accept evolution and naturalism as true (and you're saying this isn't at all incoherent?), but until he can step out into some higher level of awareness and come back with some evidence that we are really a bunch of idiots who don't actually know anything at all about the world due to a quirk of evolution, he won't ever be able to actually <I>demonstrate</I> the truth of his claim. Until he can leave Plato's cave and bring back fire to the cave-dwellers, so to speak, all he's doing is printing words on paper.<BR/><BR/>Or he could just do what he does and claim that neither is true and, because of your favorite little conditional (IF IF IF!), use his argument as a tool to demonize evolution (and don't pretend that he doesn't) and naturalism in favor of his particular choice of supernaturalism, assuming always, of course, that our minds <I>are</I> reliable based on his very own definition of the term. <BR/><BR/>As with pretty much anyone else who argues against evolution, it is probably true that he came to his conclusions a long time ago and then worked backwards and found a tricky little wordgame to back it up.<BR/><BR/>More to the point, though, if he wants to attack evolution and naturalism, he should work on finding evidence that falsifies either hypothesis instead of spinning hollow rhetoric, sitting back, and saying "Ha! Take that, evolution!" His words are interesting to philosophers, perhaps, but not to scientists.<BR/><BR/>His complete inability to provide more than rhetorical backup for his claim is why I drew a parallel to solipsism, though it might have been more appropriate to draw a parallel to Berkeley's "all exists in the mind of God" nonsense, or any number of Matrix-inspired, sophomoric "we're really just brains in jars" scenarios. Yes, any of those <I>might</I> be true, as might Plantinga's situation, but it is quite impossible to actually prove them so. Or to disprove them, for that matter, because they involve a level of reality which we cannot access if it exists at all. And if we cannot in any way access it, what reason do we have to believe it <I>does</I> exist at all?<BR/><BR/>I don't think it's really possible for you to misconstrue my intent this time: argument without evidence is little more than empty rhetoric, therefore I think Plantinga's argument to be nonsense. Same with any formulation of the ontological argument, or the cosmological argument, or the transcendental argument, or whatever else you have. They may be convincing to some people, but without physical evidence of a deity, none of them are demonstrably true.<BR/><BR/>Of course, I accept evolution and naturalism as true, so obviously I (a)just don't get Plantinga's Magnificent Truth and (b)am not a reliable seeker of truth anyway. So feel free to misunderstand me again and insist that I frame my answer in the form of a question, so to speak.Akusaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06661441668625677468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-86096382244380988602008-03-23T10:37:00.000-05:002008-03-23T10:37:00.000-05:00I wrote:"Plantinga's basic argument is that philos...I wrote:<BR/>"Plantinga's basic argument is that philosophical naturalism and evolution are unlikely (probabilistically unable) to produce a reliable mind."<BR/><BR/>Tomas, despite your correction, I hold that this is a basic summary of the argument. It isn't a formal statement of it - you're correct. But, when summarizing an argument, you focus on the conclusion and include the premises and I've done that. Your own version, identified as a sub-conclusion does precisely the same thing.<BR/><BR/>"The (sub-)conclusion is that the probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable (on the hypothesis of naturalism&evolution) is low or inscrutable.<BR/><BR/>If you can't see the difference between that boldfaced conclusion and the conclusion you attribute to Plantinga, you should really reread the article slowly."<BR/><BR/>Maybe you could explain the difference...to me (but do it in e-mail, I'm done digging through threads for comments). They both say the same thing in two different ways - the probability of a reliable mind being the product of naturalism & evolution is unlikely.<BR/><BR/>"The actual main conclusion of the argument is that the conjunction of naturalism&evolution is self-defeating, since those views entail that we have a defeater for any deliverance of our cognitive faculties."<BR/><BR/>Understood...and I'll address that if I ever get around to a more involved response to his argument. That was in no way the focus of this response.<BR/><BR/>Isn't it fair to say that I reject the sub-conclusion without addressing the conclusion? After all, isn't his conclusion dependent upon it?<BR/><BR/>"You also say:<BR/>>>His definition of reliable is such that the great bulk of the mind's deliverances are true.>><BR/><BR/>No, that's not his definition of reliable. Here it is (roughly): A cognitive faculty C is reliable iff for any deliverance D of C, D has a greater than 50% objective probability of being true."<BR/><BR/>Ok...so remove the word "great".<BR/><BR/>"So you can see how your first response isn't going to cut it:<BR/>>>While there are a number of possible objections, the simple one is this - our minds aren't reliable, they're reliable *enough*.>><BR/><BR/>If our cognitive faculties aren't reliable in the sense of "reliable" I just gave, then they're not reliable enough."<BR/><BR/>Bzzzt. The point is that I'm not willing to accept his definition of what qualifies as reliable. I'm rejecting a premise. Yes, it's informal, but I really didn't think it'd be this confusing.<BR/><BR/>"I think it would be best if you tried to actually restate Plantinga's argument so that it is valid and as plausible as you can make it, and then attack the truth of a premise or the validity of an inference. That's generally the best way to go about philosophical discourse."<BR/><BR/>Gee, thanks for the education. When it's time for me to actually come up with a formal response to this, that point will actually be relevant.<BR/><BR/>However, since you seem SO well versed and such a fan - you construct the argument (preferably as a syllogism) and that will ensure that my response is much more to your liking.<BR/><BR/>What part of "quick response" was confusing?<BR/><BR/>sans_deity@yahoo.comMatt D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06865398618141711897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-84950460300787178432008-03-23T10:04:00.000-05:002008-03-23T10:04:00.000-05:00Akusai,You said:>>Plantinga's argument is just tha...Akusai,<BR/>You said:<BR/>>>Plantinga's argument is just that: an argument.>><BR/><BR/>Yes, it is. So the best way to criticize it is to (1) state it as charitably as possible, and (2) show which premise or premises are false, or which inference is invalid.<BR/><BR/>As far as I can tell, you've done neither. <BR/><BR/><BR/>You also said:<BR/>>>You can't talk your way reliably to truths about the natural world, but Plantinga sure thinks he can.>><BR/><BR/>What? Why can't I "talk my way reliably to truths about the natural world"? What does that even mean?<BR/><BR/><BR/>>>His argument is practically a spiritual cousin of solipsism>><BR/><BR/>No it isn't. I see no relevant relationship at all. Please explain what you mean.<BR/><BR/><BR/>>>He can say nothing about science without actually doing science.>><BR/><BR/>Why not? <BR/><BR/>Did you just say something about science? (I take it you didn't just do any science.) If so, your claim is self-defeating.<BR/><BR/><BR/>>>Moreover, even if Plantinga's argument is correct, it follows that we have no way of knowing if it is correct.>><BR/><BR/>No, it doesn't follow at all. I think you've misunderstood the conclusion. It is <B>conditional</B>. <I><B>IF</B></I> naturalism and evolution are true, then the probability that our cognitive faculties are unreliable is low or inscrutable. IF. IF. IF.<BR/><BR/>So it doesn't follow at all that, if this conclusion is true, we'd never be able to know it. What follows is that <B>if naturalism and evolution are true</B>, then we have a defeater for any belief delivered by our cognitive faculties. That includes belief in naturalism and evolution. So belief in naturalism and evolution is self-defeating.<BR/><BR/><BR/>>>Our brains could have evolved a least-best mechanism for recognizing logical structure and rational constructs because it was all that was necessary for survival.>><BR/><BR/>This just makes me think you haven't read the article <I>at all</I>.<BR/><BR/><BR/>>>We could be completely mistaken in the way we go about formulating arguments and proofs, and thus we can't even know if Plantinga's argument is correct under Plantinga's own argument.>><BR/><BR/>Again, you've misunderstood the conditional conclusion.<BR/><BR/><BR/>>>Does nobody else recognize this as the lame straight-to-DVD sequel of Descartes' ultraskepticism argument for the existence of God?>><BR/><BR/>No, it's not the same at all. Nice try though.<BR/><BR/>You're right that they are both skeptical arguments, but the similarity ends there.<BR/><BR/><BR/>>>We even come to the same conclusion: "Therefore, God." Big surprise!>><BR/><BR/>Again, you've misunderstood the conclusion of Plantinga's argument. The conclusion is NOT that God exists. I think you should reread the article. <BR/><BR/><BR/>>>All his argument does is attempt to undermine any actual search for real facts about the natural world in an attempt to bolster up his search for God.>><BR/><BR/>What are you talking about? Plantinga is all for searching for real facts about the natural world. He's only argued that naturalism and evolution together, that conjunction, is self-defeating. That doesn't mean science is impossible!<BR/><BR/>By way of reply, I think it would be best for you to actually state Plantinga's argument (not just his conclusion), and tell me where it goes wrong. Which premise or premises are false? Or which inference is invalid?<BR/><BR/>That would be much more constructive.tomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17125168195651153271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-84781859225212457892008-03-22T19:05:00.000-05:002008-03-22T19:05:00.000-05:00This is pretty much what I think whenever I read a...<A HREF="http://cectic.com/125.html" REL="nofollow">This is pretty much what I think</A> whenever I read about this Plantinga bullshit.<BR/><BR/>Plantinga's argument is just that: an argument. You can't <I>talk</I> your way reliably to truths about the natural world, but Plantinga sure thinks he can. He's got nothing to back it up. His argument is practically a spiritual cousin of solipsism, an idea taken seriously only by angry 15-year-old boys and freshman phil majors. He can say nothing about science without actually doing science.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, even if Plantinga's argument is correct, <I>it follows that we have no way of knowing if it is correct</I>. Our brains could have evolved a least-best mechanism for recognizing logical structure and rational constructs because it was all that was necessary for survival. We could be completely mistaken in the way we go about formulating arguments and proofs, and thus we can't even know if Plantinga's argument is correct under Plantinga's own argument.<BR/><BR/>Of course, it there follows that we can't know if my criticism is even correct, or my criticism of my criticism, and so on. It devolves into complete absurdity.<BR/><BR/>"But Plantinga's argument is a <I>major blow</I> to science and naturalism because it strikes deeply at their epistemological base!"<BR/><BR/>Don't make me laugh. Does nobody else recognize this as the lame straight-to-DVD sequel of Descartes' ultraskepticism argument for the existence of God? This time they couldn't get the big-name star "The Evil Demon" to play the part of constant deceiver, so they shoehorned evolution and naturalism into the role instead. We even come to the same conclusion: "Therefore, God." Big surprise! Truly, there is nothing new under the sun, and Plantinga's little philosophical hornswaggle is no different.<BR/><BR/>All his argument does is attempt to undermine any actual search for real facts about the natural world in an attempt to bolster up his search for God. It obscures any real quest for knowledge, it does it badly, and it does it to no real, useful purpose.<BR/><BR/>"But Plantinga has a Ph.D in philosophy and you don't! He possesses a respected chair at a major university!"<BR/><BR/>Fuck Plantinga and the chair he rode in on.Akusaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06661441668625677468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-4070032841670124162008-03-22T09:27:00.000-05:002008-03-22T09:27:00.000-05:00matt d:just fyi. you said:>>Plantinga's basic argu...matt d:<BR/>just fyi. you said:<BR/>>>Plantinga's basic argument is that philosophical naturalism and evolution are unlikely (probabilistically unable) to produce a reliable mind.>><BR/><BR/>That's certainly not a statement of the argument. If anything, that's a (sub-)conclusion. Arguments =/= conclusions.<BR/><BR/>And that's not even an accurate statement of the (sub-)conclusion. The (sub-)conclusion is that <B>the probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable (on the hypothesis of naturalism&evolution) is low or inscrutable.</B><BR/><BR/>If you can't see the difference between that boldfaced conclusion and the conclusion you attribute to Plantinga, you should really reread the article slowly.<BR/><BR/>The actual <B>main</B> conclusion of the argument is that the conjunction of naturalism&evolution is self-defeating, since those views entail that we have a defeater for any deliverance of our cognitive faculties.<BR/><BR/>You also say:<BR/>>>His definition of reliable is such that the great bulk of the mind's deliverances are true.>><BR/><BR/>No, that's not his definition of reliable. Here it is (roughly): A cognitive faculty C is reliable iff for any deliverance D of C, D has a greater than 50% objective probability of being true.<BR/><BR/>So you can see how your first response isn't going to cut it:<BR/>>>While there are a number of possible objections, the simple one is this - our minds aren't reliable, they're reliable *enough*.>><BR/><BR/>If our cognitive faculties aren't reliable in the sense of "reliable" I just gave, then they're not reliable <I>enough</I>. If they're not reliable in the sense I just gave, then we have a defeater for any of their deliverances. <BR/><BR/>I think it would be best if you tried to actually restate Plantinga's argument so that it is valid and as plausible as you can make it, and then attack the truth of a premise or the validity of an inference. That's generally the best way to go about philosophical discourse.tomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17125168195651153271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-74382889243690979892008-03-22T01:40:00.000-05:002008-03-22T01:40:00.000-05:00So, that video represents what you think is the be...So, that video represents what you think is the best argument for the existence of god? Ok, I'll dig into it.<BR/><BR/>Yes, I have a blog (or at least one I can use)...this one. I also run a wiki that deals in counter-apologetics:<BR/><BR/>www.ironchariots.org<BR/><BR/>The Transcendental argument isn't covered there, so I'll work up a response to the video you linked and post it here (with Martin's permission).<BR/><BR/>The cosmological argument is addressed there (though it's missing one of the primary objections - that an infinite regress is not necessarily a problem). <BR/><BR/>The argument from resurrection requires that someone actually demonstrate that the resurrection occurred and the evolutionary argument against naturalism is one I may address after the Transcendental response.<BR/><BR/>However, a quick response to that one: Plantinga's basic argument is that philosophical naturalism and evolution are unlikely (probabilistically unable) to produce a reliable mind. While there are a number of possible objections, the simple one is this - our minds aren't reliable, they're reliable *enough*.<BR/><BR/>His definition of reliable is such that the great bulk of the mind's deliverances are true. That simply isn't the case. Memory is faulty and prone to manipulation, we continually err in our decision-making processes, etc. The 'reliability' is perhaps better viewed as the ability of the mind to identify and correct for a nearly constant stream of identified errors.<BR/><BR/>I'm curious about where he would draw the line on reliability and it's purported incongruity with naturalism and evolution. Would an ape's mind qualify? What about a fish or a bug? Does he think this only applies to humans or does every living mind, no matter how ill-formed, demonstrate a reliability that supports his hypothesis?<BR/><BR/>There's more, but it'll have to wait. I've got a full weekend, so I'm not sure how quickly I'll get to the transcendental argument, but I'll get there.Matt D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06865398618141711897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-53588281702634016832008-03-22T01:18:00.000-05:002008-03-22T01:18:00.000-05:00"Why do fundy atheists always feel compelled to qu..."Why do fundy atheists always feel compelled to qualify what is meant to be a good faith warning about their eternal state with a mocking tone of eternal stubbornness? But actually, I encourage you to do that. It makes you look silly in front of us, and it'll make you look silly in front of atheists and agnostics who are (to their credit) having second thoughts about their faith. Of course, that's inconceivable to you, because you mistake these nuh-uhs for actual arguments. Your blindness carries the seeds of your own negation."<BR/><BR/>Wow, clever.Luihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05210714337197709016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-73439782374946139092008-03-21T21:13:00.000-05:002008-03-21T21:13:00.000-05:00Why do fundy atheists always feel compelled to qua...<EM>Why do fundy atheists always feel compelled to qualify what is meant to be a good faith warning about their eternal state with a mocking tone of eternal stubbornness?</EM><BR/><BR/>Because we know it has no basis in reality, that's why. Thank you for your concern though.Tommyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14751182125861177379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-39307407163356001892008-03-21T20:43:00.000-05:002008-03-21T20:43:00.000-05:00Why do fundy atheists always feel compelled to qua...Why do fundy atheists always feel compelled to qualify what is meant to be a good faith warning about their eternal state with a mocking tone of eternal stubbornness? But actually, I encourage you to do that. It makes you look silly in front of us, and it'll make you look silly in front of atheists and agnostics who are (to their credit) having second thoughts about their faith. Of course, that's inconceivable to you, because you mistake these nuh-uhs for actual arguments. Your blindness carries the seeds of your own negation.Rhologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-6709436661142253732008-03-21T20:24:00.000-05:002008-03-21T20:24:00.000-05:00"Gasp! I look... silly to you?!?!? I'm beyond crus..."Gasp! I look... silly to you?!?!? I'm beyond crushed."<BR/><BR/>Good, just keep doing it. It's that sort of pig-headed stupidity that's going to serve us.Luihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05210714337197709016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-56374151803084876722008-03-21T20:19:00.000-05:002008-03-21T20:19:00.000-05:00Gasp! I look... silly to you?!?!? I'm beyond crus...Gasp! I look... <B>silly</B> to you?!?!? I'm beyond crushed.<BR/>I don't recall referring to that as an argument. I think any honest reader can see that.<BR/>And D'Souza has a good heart, but as far as being effective as an apologist for God's existence, he's not that great. <BR/>But of course I said "I don't know of anyone who..." so you're right that I do know of him and he uses it. Oh well.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-21657431309111016762008-03-21T19:00:00.000-05:002008-03-21T19:00:00.000-05:00"That's funny stuff - you claim the pros just obfu..."That's funny stuff - you claim the pros just obfuscate, and then you talk about Pascal's Wager and the ontological argument. I don't know of anyone (though my scope is limited) who thinks those are any good."<BR/><BR/>You're joking, right? Dinesh D'Souza doesn't ring a bell? He got up in a debate with Dennett and used Pascal's Wager as one of his arguments.Luihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05210714337197709016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-78527655547486051202008-03-21T18:53:00.000-05:002008-03-21T18:53:00.000-05:00"Happy Pascha to all. Christ is the victor over de..."Happy Pascha to all. Christ is the victor over death. The time of mercy is now; He won't always be so patient and merciful."<BR/><BR/>Why do fundies always feel compelled to qualify what is meant to be a discussion about philosophy and science with a threat of eternal damnation? But actually, I encourage you to do that. It makes you look silly in front of us, and it'll make you look silly in front of Christians who are (to their credit) having second thoughts about their faith. Of course, that's inconceivable to you, because you mistake these threats for actual arguments. Your blindness carries the seeds of your own negation. <BR/><BR/>"Would it be a good and commendable thing for me to collate a view of evolutionary theory based on what non-scientists told me?"<BR/><BR/>You make it sound as though you don't do that. You do.Luihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05210714337197709016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-58993873359460276412008-03-21T18:28:00.000-05:002008-03-21T18:28:00.000-05:00Matt D,That's funny stuff - you claim the pros jus...Matt D,<BR/><BR/>That's funny stuff - you claim the pros just obfuscate, and then you talk about Pascal's Wager and the ontological argument. I don't know of anyone (though my scope is limited) who thinks those are any good.<BR/><BR/>Try the <A HREF="http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/2008/03/atheists-tag-youre-out.html" REL="nofollow">transcendental argument</A>. Got a blog? Take it apart for me on there. <BR/><BR/>I'm also fairly fond of the cosmological argument and the argument from the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. Those are all fun, and I think I've stated them in order of preference. <BR/><BR/>Happy Pascha to all. Christ is the victor over death. The time of mercy is now; He won't always be so patient and merciful. <BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-69250872328546504642008-03-21T17:13:00.000-05:002008-03-21T17:13:00.000-05:00As for why Dawkins was not bombarded with question...As for why Dawkins was not bombarded with questions from Christians, it was because the vast majority of the reserved seating in the main floor was acquired by campus atheist groups. Christians were in the balcony, and the microphones were located only in the reserved seating area. <BR/><BR/>adrael -- Serious theological study ought to be required of Christians, and is one reason the tiny atheist minority in this country has an easy time provoking Christians into making such fools of themselves.Stickwick Stapershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13907778030974702899noreply@blogger.com